NEWCASTLE, Northumberland.--The first castle here was built by

Robert, son of William I., on his return from his expedition to

Scotland in 1080.[516] It was of the usual motte-and-bailey kind, the

motte standing in a small bailey which was rectilinear and roughly

oblong.[517] This motte was in existence when Brand wrote his _History

of Newcastle_, but was removed in 1811. The castle was placed outside

the Roman station at Monkchester, and commanded a Roman bridge over the

Tyne, "and to the north-east overlooked a ravine that under the name of

The Side formed for centuries a main artery of communication between

England and Scotland."[518] Henry II., when he built the fine keep of

this castle, did not place it on the motte, but in the outer and larger

ward, which was roughly triangular. The outer curtain appears to have

stood on the banks of the former earthen castle, as the Parliamentary

Survey of 1649 speaks of the castle as "bounded with strong works of

stone and mud."[519] The area of the whole castle was 3 acres and 1

rood.

[Illustration: FIG. 22. Norham. Nottingham.]

NORHAM, Northumberland (Fig. 22).--The first castle here was built

by Ranulf Flambard, Bishop of Durham, in the reign of William Rufus.

It was built to defend Northumberland against the incursions of the

Scots, and we are expressly told that no castle had existed there

previously.[520] This first castle, which we may certainly assume to

have been of earth and wood, was destroyed by the Scots in 1138, and

there does not seem to have been any stone castle until the time of

Bishop Puiset or Pudsey, who built the present keep by command of King

Henry II.[521] Mr Clark tried hard to find some work of Flambard's in

this tower, but found it difficult, and was driven back on the rather

lame assumption that "the lapse of forty [really fifty at least] years

had not materially changed the style of architecture then in use."[522]

In fact, the Norman parts of this keep show no work so early as the

11th century, but are advanced in style, for not only was the basement

vaulted, but the first floor also. The simple explanation is that

Flambard threw up the large square motte on which the keep now stands,

and provided it with the usual wooden defences. It also had a strong

tower, but almost certainly a wooden one; hence it was easily destroyed

by the Scots when once taken.[523] The motte was probably lowered to

some extent when the stone keep was built. It stands on a high bank

overlooking the Tweed, and is separated from its bailey by a deep

ditch. The bailey may be described as a segment of a circle; its area

is about 2 acres.

NORWICH (Fig. 23).--We find from Domesday Book that no less than 113

houses were destroyed for the site of this castle, a certain proof that

the castle was new.[524] It is highly probable that it was outside the

primitive defences of the town, at any rate in part. Norwich was built,

partly on a peninsula formed by a double bend of the river Wensum,

partly in a district lying south-west of this peninsula, and defended

by a ridge of rising ground running in a north-easterly direction. The

castle was placed on the edge of this ridge, and all the oldest part

of the town, including the most ancient churches, lies to the east of

it.[525] In the conjectural map of Norwich in 1100, given in Woodward's

_History of Norwich Castle_,[526] the street called Burg Street divides

the Old Burg on the east from the New Burg on the west; this street

runs along a ridge which traverses the neck of the peninsula from

south-west to north-east, and on the northern end of this ridge the

castle stands.[527] There can be little doubt that this street marks

the line of the _burh_ or enclosing bank by which the primitive town

of Norwich was defended.[528] A clear proof of this lies in the fact

that the castle of Norwich was anciently not in the jurisdiction of the

city, but in that of the county; the citizens had no authority over the

houses lying beyond the castle ditches until it was expressly granted

to them by Edward III.[529] The mediæval walls of Norwich, vastly

extending the borders of the city, were not built till Henry III.'s

reign.[530]

[Illustration: FIG. 23. Norwich.

(From Harrod's "Gleanings among the Castles and Convents of Norfolk,"

p. 133.)]

The motte of Norwich Castle, according to recent investigations,

is entirely artificial;[531] it was originally square, and had "a

prodigious large and deep ditch around it."[532] The fancy of the

antiquary Wilkins that the motte was the centre of two concentric

outworks[533] was completely disproved by Mr Harrod, who showed that

the original castle was a motte with one of the ordinary half-moon

baileys attached. Another ward, called the Castle Meadow, was probably

added at a later date. The magnificent keep which now stands on the

motte is undoubtedly a work of the 12th century.[534] The castle which

Emma, wife of Earl Ralf Guader, defended against the Conqueror after

the celebrated bride-ale of Norwich was almost certainly a wooden

structure. As late as the year 1172 the bailey was still defended by

a wooden stockade and wooden bretasches;[535] and even in 1225 the

stockade had not been replaced by a stone wall.[536]

Norwich was a royal castle, and consequently always in the hands of the

sheriff; it was never the property of the Bigods.[537] As the fable

that extensive lands belonging to the monastery of Ely were held on the

tenure of castle guard at Norwich _before the Conquest_ is repeated

by all the local historians,[538] it is worth while to note that the

charters of Henry I. setting the convent free from this service, make

no allusion to any such ancient date for it,[539] and that the tenure

of castle guard is completely unknown to the Anglo-Saxon laws. The area

of the inner bailey is 3-1/4 acres, and that of the outer, 4-1/2 acres.

The value of Norwich had greatly risen since the Conquest.[540]

NOTTINGHAM (Fig. 22).--This important castle is not mentioned in

Domesday Book, but the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ says that William I.

built the castle at Nottingham in 1067, on his way to repress the

first insurrection in Yorkshire. Ordericus, repeating this statement,

adds that he committed it to the keeping of William Peverel.[541]

The castle was placed on a lofty headland at some distance from the

Danish borough, and between the two arose the Norman borough which is

mentioned in Domesday Book as the _novus burgus_. The two upper wards

of the present castle probably represent William's plan. The upper ward

forms a natural motte of rock, as it is 15 feet higher than the bailey

attached to it, and has been separated from it by a ditch cut across

the rocky headland, which can still be traced below the modern house

which now stands on the motte. Such a site was not only treated as a

motte, but was actually called by that name, as we read of the _mota_

of Nottingham Castle in the _Pipe Rolls_ of both John's and Richard

I.'s reigns.

Mr Clark published a bird's-eye view of Nottingham Castle in his

_Mediæval Military Architecture_, about which he only stated that it

was taken from the _Illustrated London News_. It does not agree with

the plan made by Simpson in 1617,[542] and is therefore not quite

trustworthy; the position of the keep, for example, is quite different.

The keep, which Hutchison in his Memoirs speaks of as "the strong tower

called the Old Tower on the top of the rock," seems clearly Norman,

from the buttresses. It was placed (according to Simpson's plan), on

the north side of the small ward which formed the top of the motte,

and was enclosed in a yet older shell wall which has now disappeared.

The height of this motte is indicated in the bird's-eye view by the

ascending wall which leads up it from the bailey. It had its own ditch,

as appears by several mentions in the accounts of "the drawbridge of

the keep," and "the bridge leading up to the dongeon."[543] It is

highly probable that this keep was built by King John, as in a _Mise

Roll_ of 1212 there is a payment entered "towards making the tower

which the king commanded to be built on the motte of Nottingham."[544]

But the first masonry in the castle was probably the work of Henry

II., who spent £1737, 9s. 5d. on the castle and houses, the gaol, the

king's chamber, the hall, and in raising the walls and enclosing the

bailey.[545] The castle has been so devastated by the 17th century

spoiler, that the work of Henry and John has been almost entirely

swept away, but the one round tower which still remains as part of

the defences of the inner bailey, looks as though it might be of the

time of Henry II. This bailey is semicircular; the whole original

castle covers only 1-2/3 acres. A very much larger bailey was added

afterwards, probably in John's reign.[546] Probably this later bailey

was at first enclosed with a bank and stockade, and this stockade may

be the palitium of which there are notices in the records of Henry

III. and Edward I.[547] The main gateway of this bailey, which still

remains, is probably of Edward I. or Edward II.'s reign.[548]

The castle of Nottingham was the most important one in the Midlands,

and William of Newburgh speaks of it as "so well defended by nature and

art that it appears impregnable."[549] The value of the town had risen

from £18 to £30 at the time of the Survey.[550]

[Illustration: FIG. 24. Okehampton, Devon. Penwortham, Lancs. Pevensey,

Sussex.]

OKEHAMPTON, Devon (Fig. 24).--Baldwin de Molis, Sheriff of Devon, held

the manor of Okehampton at the time of the Survey, and had a castle

there.[551] On a hill in the valley of the Okement River stand the

remains of a castle of the motte-and-bailey pattern. On the motte,

which is high and steep, are the ruins of a keep of late character,

probably of the 14th century.[552] The oval bailey covers 1/2 an acre,

and the whole castle is surrounded with a very deep ditch (filled up

now on the east side) which is in part a natural ravine. The usual

ditch between the motte and the bailey is absent here. This castle

appears to have continued always in private hands, and therefore there

is little to be learned about it from the public records. The value of

Okehampton manor had increased since the Conquest from £8 to £10. As

there is no _burgus_ mentioned T. R. E., but four _burgenses_ and a

market T. R. W., Baldwin the Sheriff must have built a borough as well

as a castle. Otherwise it was a small manor of thirty ploughs.

OSWESTRY, Shropshire.--Mr Eyton's identification of the Domesday castle

of Louvre, in the manor of Meresberie, Shropshire, with Oswestry, seems

to be decisive.[553] The name is simply L'Oeuvre, the Work, a name

very frequently given to castles in the early Norman period. Domesday

Book says that Rainald de Bailleul built a castle at this place.[554]

He had married the widow of Warin, Sheriff of Shropshire, who died in

1085. The castle afterwards passed into the hands of the Fitz Alans,

great lords-marcher on the Welsh border. As the Welsh annals give the

credit of building the castle to Madoc ap Meredith, into whose hands it

fell during the reign of Stephen, it is not impossible that some of the

masonry still existing on the motte, which consists of large cobbles

bedded in very thick mortar, may be his work, and probably the first

stonework in the castle. A sketch made in the 18th century, however,

which is the only drawing preserved of the castle, seems to show

architecture of the Perpendicular period.[555] But probably the keep

alone was of masonry in the 12th century, as in 1166, when the castle

was in royal custody, the repair of the stockade is referred to in the

_Pipe Rolls_.[556] No plan has been preserved of Oswestry Castle, so

that it is impossible to recover the shape or area of the bailey, which

is now built over. The manor of Meresberie had been unoccupied (wasta)

in the days of King Edward, but it yielded 40s. at the date of the

Survey. Eyton gives reasons for thinking that the town of Oswestry was

founded by the Normans.

[Illustration: FIG. 25. Oxford.

(From "Oxonia Illustrata," David Loggan, 1675.)]

OXFORD (Fig. 25).--This castle was built in 1071 by Robert d'Oilgi (or

d'Oilly), a Norman who received large estates in Oxfordshire.[557]

Oxford was a burgus in Saxon times, and is one of those mentioned in

the _Burghal Hidage_. Domesday tells us that the king has twenty mural

mansions there, which had belonged to Algar, Earl of Mercia, and that

they were called mural mansions because their owners had to repair the

city wall at the king's behest, a regulation probably as old as the

days of Alfred. The Norman castle was placed outside the town walls,

but near the river, from which its trenches were fed.[558] It was

without doubt a motte-and-bailey castle; the motte still remains, and

the accompanying bird's-eye view by David Loggan, 1675, shows that the

later stone walls of the bailey stood on the earthen banks of D'Oilly's

castle. The site is now occupied by a gaol. On the line of the walls

rises the ancient tower of St George's Church, which so much resembles

an early Norman keep that we might think it was intended for one, if

the Osney chronicler had not expressly told us that the church was

founded two years after the castle.[559] It is evident that the design

was to make the church tower work as a mural tower, a combination of

piety and worldly wisdom quite in accord with what the chronicler tells

us of the character of Roger d'Oilly.

Henry II. spent some £260 on this castle between the years 1165 and

1173, the houses in the keep, and the well being specially mentioned.

We may presume that he built with stone the decagonal [shell?] keep on

the motte, whose foundations were discovered at the end of the 18th

century.[560] There is still in the heart of the motte a well in a very

remarkable well chamber, the masonry of which may be of his time. The

area of the bailey appears to have been 3 acres.

The value of the city of Oxford had trebled at the time of the Domesday

Survey.[561]

In the treaty between Stephen and Henry in 1153 the whole castle of

Oxford is spoken of as the "Mota" of Oxford.[562]

PEAK CASTLE, Derbyshire.--The Survey simply calls this castle the

Castle of William Peverel, but tells us that two Saxons had formerly

held the _land_.[563] There is no motte here, but the strong position,

defended on two sides by frightful precipices, rendered very little

fortification necessary. It is possible that the wall on the N. and

W. sides of the area may be, in part at least, the work of William

Peverel; the W. wall contains a great deal of herring-bone work, and

the tower at the N.W. angle does not flank at all, while the other

one in the N. wall only projects a few feet; the poor remains of

the gatehouse also appear to be Norman. It would probably be easier

to build a wall than to raise an earthbank in this stony country;

nevertheless, behind the modern wall which runs up from the gatehouse

to the keep, something like an earthbank may be observed on the edge of

the precipice, which ought to be examined before any conclusions are

determined as to the first fortifications of this castle. The keep,

which is of different stone to the other towers and the walls, stands

on the highest ground in the area, apparently on the natural rock,

which crops up in the basement. It is undoubtedly the work of Henry

II., as the accounts for it remain in the _Pipe Rolls_, and the slight

indications of style which it displays, such as the nook-shafts at the

angles, correspond to the Transition Norman period.[564] The shape of

the bailey is a quadrant; its area scarcely exceeds 1 acre.

The value of the manor had risen since the Conquest, and William

Peverel had doubled the number of ploughs in the demesne. The castle

only remained in the hands of the Peverels for two generations, and was

then forfeited to the crown. The manor was only a small one; and the

site of the castle was probably chosen for its natural advantages and

for the facility of hunting in the Peak Forest.

PENWORTHAM, Lancashire (Fig. 24).--"King Edward held Peneverdant. There

are two carucates of land there, and they used to pay ten pence. Now

there is a castle there, and there are two ploughs in the demesne,

and six burghers, and three radmen, and eight villeins, and four

cowherds. Amongst them all they have four ploughs. There is half a

fishery there. There is wood and hawk's eyries, as in King Edward's

time. It is worth £3."[565] The very great rise in value in this

manor shows that some great change had taken place since the Norman

Conquest. This change was the building of a castle. The _modo_ of

Domesday always expresses a contrast with King Edward's time, and

clearly tells us here that Penwortham Castle was new.[566] It lay in

the extensive lands between the Ribble and the Mersey, which were part

of the Conqueror's enfeoffment of Roger the Poitevin, third son of Earl

Roger de Montgomeri.[567] Since Penwortham is mentioned as demesne,

and no under-tenant is spoken of, we may perhaps assume that this

castle, which was the head of a barony, was built by Roger himself.

He did not hold it long, as he forfeited all his estates in 1102. At

a later period, though we have not been able to trace when, the manor

of Penwortham passed into the hands of the monks of Evesham, to whom

the church had already been granted, at the end of the Conqueror's

reign.[568] Probably it is because the castle thus passed into the

hands of the church that it never developed into a stone castle, like

Clitheroe. The seat of the barony was transferred elsewhere, and

probably the timbers of the castle were used in the monastic buildings

of Penwortham Priory.

The excavations which were made here in 1856 proved conclusively that

there were no stone foundations on the Castle Hill at Penwortham.[569]

These excavations revealed the singular fact that the Norman had thrown

up his motte on the site of a British or Romano-British hut, without

even being aware of it, since the ruins of the hut were buried 5 feet

deep and covered by a grass-grown surface, on which the Norman had laid

a rude pavement of boulders before piling his motte.[570] Among the

objects found in the excavations was a Norman prick spur, a conclusive

proof of the Norman origin of the motte.[571] No remains appear to have

been found of the Norman wooden keep; but this would be accounted for

by the theory suggested above.

Penwortham is a double motte, the artificial hill rising on the back of

a natural hill, which has been isolated from its continuing ridge by an

artificial ditch cut through it. The double hill rises out of a bailey

court which is rudely square, but whose shape is determined by the

ground, which forms a headland running out into the Ribble. The whole

area cannot certainly be ascertained. There was a ferry at this point

in Norman times.[572] The castle defends the mouth of the Ribble and

overlooks the town of Preston.

Penwortham was certainly not the _caput_ of a large soke in Saxon

times, as it was only a berewick of Blackburn, in which hundred it lay.

It was the Norman who first made it the seat of a barony.

PETERBOROUGH.--The chronicler, Hugh Candidus, tells us that Abbot

Thorold, the Norman abbot whom William I. appointed to the ancient

minster of Peterborough, built a castle close to the church, "which in

these days is called Mount Torold."[573] This mount is still existing,

but it has lost its ancient name, and is now called Tout Hill. It

stands in the Deanery garden, and has probably been largely ransacked

for garden soil, as it has a decayed and shapeless look. Still, it is a

venerable relic of Norman aggression, well authenticated.

PEVENSEY, Sussex (Fig. 24).--The Roman castrum of Pevensey (still

so striking in its remains) was an inhabited town at the date of

the Norman Conquest, and was an important port.[574] After taking

possession of the castrum, William I. drew a strong bank across its

eastern end, and placed a castle in the area thus isolated. This first

castle was probably entirely of wood, as there was a wooden _palicium_

on the bank as late as the reign of Henry II.[575] But if a wooden keep

was built at first, it was very soon superseded by one of stone.[576]

The remains of this keep have recently been excavated by Mr Harold

Sands and Mr Montgomerie, and show it to have been a most remarkable

building[577] (see Chapter XII., p. 355)--in all probability one

of the few 11th century keeps in England. We may perhaps attribute

this distinction to the fact that no less a man than the Conqueror's

half-brother, the Count of Mortain, was made the guardian of this

important port.

Pevensey is mentioned as a port in the _Close Rolls_ of Henry III.'s

reign, and was one of the important waterways to the Continent.[578] As

has been already noted, the establishment of the castle was followed

by the usual rise in the value of the _burgus_.[579] The area of the

castle covers 1 acre.

PONTEFRACT, Yorkshire (Fig. 26).--This castle is not spoken of in

Domesday by its French name, but there can be no doubt that it is "the

Castle of Ilbert" which is twice mentioned and several times alluded to

in the _Clamores_, or disputed claims, which are enrolled at the end of

the list of lands in Yorkshire belonging to the tenants-in-chief.[580]

The existence of Ilbert's castle at Pontefract in the 11th century is

made certain by a charter (only an early copy of which is now extant)

in the archives of the Duchy of Lancaster, in which William Rufus at

his accession regrants to Ilbert de Lacy "the custom of the castelry

of his castle, as he had it in the Conqueror's days and in those of

the bishop of Bayeux."[581] As Mr Holmes remarks, this carries us back

to four years before the compilation of Domesday Book, since Odo,

Bishop of Bayeux, whom William had left as regent during his absence in

Normandy, was arrested and imprisoned in 1082.[582]

Pontefract is called Kirkby in some of the earlier charters, and this

was evidently the English (or rather the Danish) name of the place. It

lay within the manor of Tateshall, which is supposed to be the same

as Tanshelf, a name still preserved in the neighbourhood of, but not

exactly at, Pontefract.[583] Tanshelf claims to be the Taddenescylf

mentioned in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, where King Edgar received

the submission of the Yorkshire Danes in 947. There is no proof that

the hill at Kirkby was fortified before the Conquest. It was a steep

headland rising out of the plain of the Aire, and needing only to be

scarped by art and to have a ditch cut across its neck to be almost

impregnable. It lay scarcely a mile east of the Roman road from

Doncaster to Castleford and the north.

[Illustration: FIG. 26. Pontefract, Yorks. Preston Capes, Northants.

Quatford, Salop.]

It is no part of our task to trace the fortunes of this famous

castle, which was considered in the Middle Ages to be the key of

Yorkshire.[584] In spite of the labels affixed to the walls we venture

to assert with confidence that none of the masonry now visible

belongs to the days of Ilbert. The structural history of the castle

was probably this: Ilbert de Lacy, one of the greatest of the Norman

tenants-in-chief in Yorkshire,[585] built in this naturally defensive

situation a castle of earth and wood, like other Norman castles.

Whether he found the place already defended by earthen banks we do not

attempt to decide, but analogy makes it fairly certain that the motte

was his work, and was crowned by a wooden tower. This motte, which

was at least partially scarped out of the soft sandstone rock, is now

disguised by the remarkable keep which has been built up around it,

consisting at present of two enormous round towers and the ruins of a

third. As a fourth side is vacant, it may reasonably be conjectured

that there was a fourth roundel.[586] If the plan was a quatrefoil

it resembled that of the keep of York, which is now ascertained to

belong to the reign of Henry III.; and the very little detail that is

left supports the view that Pontefract keep was copied from the royal

experiment at York, though it differed from it in that it actually

revetted the motte itself. There is no ditch now round the motte, but

we venture to think that its inner ditch is indicated by the position

of the postern in Piper's Tower, which seems to mark its outlet.

It appears to have been partly filled up during the great siege of

Pontefract in 1648.[587] The platform which is attached to the motte

on the side facing the bailey is probably an addition of the same

date, intended for artillery; its retaining wall shows signs of hasty

construction. A well chamber and a passage leading both to it and to a

postern opening towards the outer ditch appear to have been made in the

rocky base of the motte in the 13th century.

The area of the inner and probably original bailey of this castle,

including the motte, is 2-1/3 acres. The Main Guard, and another bailey

covering the approach on the S. side, were probably later additions,

bringing up the castle area to 7 acres. The shape of the first bailey

is an irregular oval, determined by the hill on which it stands.

The value of the manor of Tateshall had fallen at the time of the

Survey from £20 to £15, an unusual circumstance in the case of a manor

which had become the seat of an important castle; but the number of

ploughs had decreased by half, and we may infer that Tateshall had not

recovered from the great devastation of Yorkshire in 1068.[588]

PRESTON CAPES, Northants (Fig. 26).--That a castle of the 11th century

stood here is only proved by a casual mention in the _Historia

Fundationis_ of the Cluniac priory of Daventry, which tells us

that this priory was first founded by Hugh de Leycestre, Seneschal

of Matilda de Senlis, close to his own castle of Preston Capes,

about 1090. Want of water and the proximity of the castle proving

inconvenient, the priory was removed to Daventry.[589] The work lies

about 3 miles from the Watling Street. The castle stands on a spur of

high land projecting northwards towards a feeder of the river Nesse,

about 3 miles W. of the Watling Street. The works consist of a motte,

having a flat top 80 to 90 feet in diameter, and remains of a slight

breastwork. This motte is placed on the edge of the plateau, and the

ground falls steeply round its northern half. About 16 feet down this

slope, a ditch with an outer bank has been dug, embracing half the

mound. Lower down, near the foot of the slope, is another and longer

ditch and rampart. It is probable that the bailey occupied the flatter

ground S.E. of the motte, but the site is occupied by a farm, and no

traces are visible.[590]

The value of the manor of Preston Capes had risen from 6s. to 40s.

at the time of the Survey. It was held by Nigel of the Count of

Mellent.[591]

QUATFORD, Shropshire (Fig. 26).--There can hardly be any doubt that the

_nova domus_ at Quatford mentioned in the Survey was the new castle

built by Roger de Montgomeri, Earl of Shrewsbury. We have already

suggested that the _burgus_ which also existed there may have been his

work, and not that of the Danes.[592] The manor belonged to the church

before the Conquest.[593] The oval motte, which still remains, is

described as placed on a bold rocky promontory jutting into the Severn;

it is not quite 30 feet high, and about 60 feet by 120 in diameter

on top, and has a small bean-shaped bailey of 1 acre. It is near the

church, which has Norman remains.[594] Robert Belesme, son of Earl

Roger, removed the castle to Bridgenorth, and so the Quatford castle is

heard of no more.[595] The manor of Quatford was paying nothing at the

date of the Survey.

RAYLEIGH, Essex (Fig. 27).--"In this manor Sweyn has made his

castle."[596] Sweyn was the son of Robert Fitz-Wymarc, a half English,

half Norman favourite of Edward the Confessor. Robert was Sheriff of

Essex under Edward and William, and Sweyn appears to have succeeded

his father in this office.[597] Sweyn built his castle on land which

had not belonged to his father, so Rayleigh cannot be the "Robert's

Castle" of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, to which some of the Norman

adventurers fled on the triumph of Earl Godwin.[598] There is a fine

motte at Rayleigh, and a semicircular bailey attached; the ditch round

the whole is still well marked. There is not a vestige of masonry

on the surface, but some excavations made in 1910 revealed stone

foundations. The inner bailey covers 3/4 of an acre. The value of the

manor had risen since the Conquest, but it was only a small one, with

no villages in its soke.

RICHARD'S CASTLE, Herefordshire (Fig. 27).--There can be little doubt

that this is the castle referred to in Domesday Book under the name

of Avreton, as it is not far from Overton, on the northern border of

Hereford.[599] Richard's Castle is almost certainly the castle of

Richard, son of Scrob, one of the Normans to whom Edward the Confessor

had granted large estates, and who probably fortified himself on this

site. At the time of the Survey Richard was dead, and the castle was

held by his son Osbern, and it is noted that he pays 10s., but the

castle is worth 20s. to him. Its value was the same as in King Edward's

time, a fact worth noting, as it coincides with the assumption that

this was a pre-Conquest castle. There is a high and steep motte at

Richard's Castle, and a small half-moon shaped bailey.[600] There are

remains of a stone wing wall running down the motte, and on the top

there is a straight piece of masonry which must be part of a tower

keep. The area of the inner bailey is 2/3 of an acre. Avreton was

not the centre of a soke, but appears to have lain in the manor of

Ludeford.

[Illustration: FIG. 27. Rayleigh, Essex. Richard's Castle, Hereford.]

RICHMOND, Yorks (Fig. 28).--As in the case of Pontefract, this other

great Yorkshire castle is not mentioned by name in Domesday Book,

nor is there any allusion to it except a casual mention in the

_Recapitulation_ that Earl Alan has 199 manors in his castelry, and

that besides the castelry he has 43 manors.[601] The castle must have

been built at the date of the Survey, which was completed only a year

before William I.'s death; for during William's lifetime Earl Alan, the

first holder of the fief, gave _the chapel in the castle of Richmond_

to the abbey of St Mary at York, which he had founded.[602] The name,

of course, is French, and it seems impossible now to discover what

English manor-name it has displaced.[603] It is certainly a case in

which the Norman castle was not placed in the seat of the former Saxon

proprietor, but in the site which seemed most defensible to the Norman

lord. The lands of Earl Alan in the wapentake of Gilling had belonged

to the Saxon Earl Edwin, and thus cannot have fallen to Alan's share

before Edwin's death in 1071. The _Genealogia_ published by Dodsworth

(from an MS. compiled in the reign of Edward III.), says that Earl

Alan first built Richmond Castle near his chief manor of Gilling, to

defend his people against the attacks of the disinherited English and

Danes.[604] The passage has been enlarged by Camden, who says that

Alan "thought himself not safe enough in Gilling"; and this has been

interpreted to mean that Alan originally built his castle at Gilling,

and afterwards removed it to Richmond; but the original words have no

such meaning.[605]

Richmond Castle differs from most of the castles mentioned in Domesday

in that it has no motte. The ground plan indeed was very like that

of a motte-and-bailey castle, in that old maps show a small roundish

enclosure at the apex of the large triangular bailey.[606] But a recent

examination of the keep by Messrs Hope and Brakespear has confirmed

the theory first enunciated by Mr Loftus Brock,[607] that the keep

is built over the original gateway of the castle, and that the lower

stage of its front wall is the ancient wall of the castle. The small

ward indicated in the old maps is therefore most likely a barbican,

of later date than the 12th century keep, which is probably rightly

attributed by the _Genealogia_ cited above to Earl Conan, who reigned

from 1148-1171.[608] Some entries in the _Pipe Rolls_ make it almost

certain that it was finished by Henry II., who kept the castle in

his own hands for some time after the death of Conan.[609] There are

some indications at Richmond that the first castle was of stone and not

of earth and wood. The walls do not stand on earthen banks; the Norman

curtain can still be traced on two sides of the castle, and on the

west side it seems of early construction, containing a great deal of

herringbone work, and might possibly be the work of Earl Alan.

[Illustration: FIG. 28. Richmond, Yorks. Rochester, Kent.]

The whole area of the castle is 2-1/2 acres, including the annexe known

as the Cockpit. This was certainly enclosed during the Norman period,

as it has a Norman gateway in its wall.

As we do not know the name of the site of Richmond before the Conquest,

and as the name of Richmond is not mentioned in Domesday Book, we

cannot tell whether the value of the manor had risen or fallen. But no

part of Yorkshire was more flourishing at the time of the Survey than

this wapentake of Gilling, which belonged to Earl Alan; in no district,

except in the immediate neighbourhood of York, are there so many places

where the value has risen. Yet the greater part of it was let out to

under-tenants.

ROCHESTER, Kent (Fig. 28).--Under the heading of Aylsford, Kent, the

Survey tells us that "the bishop of Rochester holds as much of this

land as is worth 17s. 4d. _in exchange for the land in which the castle

sits_."[610] Rochester was a Roman _castrum_, and portions of its Roman

wall have recently been found.[611] The fact that various old charters

speak of the _castellum_ of Rochester has led some authorities to

believe that there was a castle there in Saxon times, but the context

of these charters shows plainly that the words _castellum Roffense_

were equivalent to _Castrum Roffense_ or _Hrofesceastre_.[612]

Otherwise there is not a particle of evidence for the existence of a

castle at Rochester in pre-Norman times, and the passage in Domesday

quoted above shows that William's castle was a new erection, built on

land obtained by exchange from the church.

Outside the line of the Roman wall, to the south of the city, and west

of the south gate, there is a district called Boley or Bullie Hill,

which at one time was included in the fortifications of the present

castle. It is a continuation of the ridge on which that castle stands,

and has been separated from it by a ditch. This ditch once entirely

surrounded it, and though it was partly filled up in the 18th century

its line can still be traced. The area enclosed by this ditch was

about 3 acres; the form appears to have been oblong. In the grounds

of Satis House, one of the villas which have been built on this site,

there still remains a conical artificial mound, much reduced in size,

as it has been converted into a pleasure-ground with winding walks,

but the retaining walls of these walks are composed of old materials;

and towards the riverside there are still vestiges of an ancient

wall.[613] We venture to think that this Boley Hill and its motte

formed the original site of the (probably) wooden castle of William

the Conqueror. Its nature, position, and size correspond to what we

have already observed as characteristic of the first castles of the

Conquest. It stands on land which originally belonged to the church of

St Andrew, as Domesday Book tells us William's castle did.[614] The

very name may be interpreted in favour of this theory.[615] And that

there was no Roman or Saxon fortification on the spot is proved by

excavations, which have shown that both a Roman and a Saxon cemetery

occupied portions of the area.[616]

It is well known that between the years 1087 and 1089 the celebrated

architect, Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester, built a new _stone_ castle

for William Rufus, "in the best part of the city of Rochester."[617]

This castle, of course, was on the same site as the present one,

though the splendid keep was not built till the next reign.[618] But

if what we have maintained above be correct the castle of Gundulf was

built on a different site from that of the castle of William. Nor are

we without evidence in support of this. What remains of the original

Norman wall of Gundulf's castle (and enough remains to show that the

circuit was complete in Norman times) does not stand on earthen banks;

and this, though not a proof, is a strong suggestion that there was

no earthen bank belonging to some previous castle when Gundulf began

his building.[619] But further, Mr Livett has shown in his paper on

_Mediæval Rochester_[620] that in order to form a level plateau for

the court of the castle the ground had to be artificially made up on

the north and east sides, and in these places the wall rests on a

foundation of gravel, which has been forcibly rammed to make it solid,

and which goes through the artificial soil to the natural chalk below.

Now what can this rammed gravel mean but an expedient to avoid the

danger of building in stone on freshly heaped soil? Had the artificial

platform been in existence ever since the Conquest, it would have been

solid enough to build upon without this expense. It is therefore at

least probable that Bishop Gundulf's castle was built on an entirely

new site.

It seems also to be clear that the Boley Hill was included as an

outwork in Bishop Gundulf's plan, for the castle ditch is cut through

the Roman wall near the south gate of the city.[621] Mr Livett remarks

that King John appears to have used the hill as a point of vantage

when he attacked the city in 1215, and he thinks this was probably the

reason why Henry III.'s engineers enclosed it with a stone wall when

they restored the walls of the city.[622] Henry III.'s wall has been

traced all round the city, and at the second south gate it turns at

right angles, or nearly so, so as to enclose Boley Hill.[623] It is

probable, as Mr Livett suggests, that the drawbridge and _bretasche_,

or wooden tower, ordered in 1226 for the southern side of Rochester

Castle,[624] were intended to connect the Boley Hill court with the

main castle. In 1722 the owner of the castle (which had then fallen

into private hands) conveyed to one Philip Brooke, "that part of the

castle ditch and ground, as it then lay unenclosed, on Bully Hill,

being the whole breadth of the hill and ditch without the walls of the

castle, extending from thence to the river Medway."[625]

The general opinion about the Boley Hill is that it is a Danish

earthwork, thrown up by the Danes when they besieged the city in 885.

But if our contention in Chapter IV. is just, the Danish fortifications

were not mottes, nor anything like them; and (as has already been

pointed out) the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ indicates the nature of the

fortress in this case by its expression, "they made a work around

themselves";[626] that is, it was a circumvallation. Moreover, at

Rochester the Danes would have had to pass under the bridge (which is

known to have existed both in Roman and Saxon times) in order to get to

the Boley Hill; and even if their ships were small enough to do this

they would hardly have been so foolish as to leave a bridge in their

possible line of retreat. It is therefore far more likely that their

fastness was somewhere to the north or east of the city.[627]

It is a noteworthy fact that up till very recently the Boley Hill had

a special jurisdiction of its own, under an officer called the Baron

of the Bully, appointed by the Recorder of the city. This appears to

date from a charter of Edward IV. in 1460, which confirms the former

liberties of the citizens of Rochester, and ordains that they should

keep two courts' leet and a court of pie-powder annually on the Bullie

Hill. The anonymous historian of Rochester remarks that it was thought

that the baron represented the first officer under the governor of the

castle before the court leet was instituted, to whose care the security

of the Bullie Hill was entrusted.[628] This is probably much nearer the

truth than the theory which would assign such thoroughly feudal courts

as those of court leet and pie-powder to an imaginary community of

Danes residing on the Boley Hill. When we compare the case of the Boley

Hill with the somewhat similar cases of Chester and Norwich castles

we shall see that what took place in Edward IV.'s reign was probably

this: the separate jurisdiction which had once belonged to an abandoned

castle site was transferred to the citizens of Rochester, but with the

usual conservatism of mediæval legislation, it was not absorbed in the

jurisdiction of the city.

The value of Rochester at the time of the Survey had risen from 100_s._

to 20_l._[629] The increase of trade, arising from the security of

traffic which was provided by William's castles on this important

route, no doubt accounts in great measure for this remarkable rise in

value.

ROCKINGHAM, Northants (Fig. 29).--Here, also, the castle was clearly

new in William's reign, as the manor was uninhabited (_wasta_) until a

castle was built there by his orders, in consequence of which the manor

produced a small revenue at the time of the Survey.[630] The motte,

now in great part destroyed, was a large one, being about 80 feet

in diameter at the top; attached to it is a bailey of irregular but

rectilateral shape (determined by the ground) covering about 3 acres.

There is another large bailey to the S. covering 4 acres, formed by

cutting a ditch across the spur of the hill on which the castle stands,

which is probably later. The first castle would undoubtedly be of wood,

and it is probable that King John was the builder of the "exceeding

fair and strong" keep which stood on the motte in Leland's time,[631]

as there is an entry in the _Pipe Roll_ of the thirteenth year of his

reign for 126_l._ 18_s._ 6_d._ for the work of the new tower.[632] This

keep, if Mr Clark is correct, was polygonal, with a timber stockade

surrounding it.

Rockingham was only a small manor of one hide in Saxon times, though

its Saxon owner had sac and soke. It stands in a forest district, not

near any of the great ancient lines of road, and was probably built for

a hunting seat.

The value of the manor had risen at the time of the Survey.[633]

During the Civil War, the motte of Rockingham was fortified in an

elaborate manner by the Parliamentarians, part of the defences being

two wooden stockades:[634] an interesting instance of the use both of

mottes and of wooden fortifications in comparatively modern warfare.

Only the north and west sides of this mount now remain.

[Illustration: FIG. 29. Rockingham, Northants.]

OLD SARUM, Wilts (Fig. 30).--Sir Richard Colt Hoare printed in his

_Ancient Wiltshire_ a document purporting to be an order from Alfred,

"King of the English," to Leofric, "Earl of Wiltunshire," to maintain

the castle of Sarum, and add another ditch to it.[635] The phraseology

of the document suggests some doubts of its genuineness, and though

there would be nothing improbable in the theory that Alfred reared

the outer bank of the fortress, recent excavations have shown that

the place was occupied by the Romans, and therefore make it certain

that its origin was very much earlier than Alfred's time. Moreover,

the convergence of several Roman roads at this spot suggests the

probability of a Roman station,[636] while the form of the enclosure

renders an earlier origin likely. Domesday Book does not speak of

Salisbury as a _burgus_, and when the _burgus_ of Old Sarum is

mentioned in later documents it appears to refer to a district lying at

the foot of the Castle Hill, and formerly enclosed with a wall.[637]

Nor is it one of the boroughs of the _Burghal Hidage_. But that Sarum

was an important place in Saxon times is clear from the fact that there

was a mint there; and there is evidence of the existence of at least

four Saxon churches, as well as a hospital for lepers.[638]

For more exact knowledge as to the history of this ancient fortress

we must wait till the excavations now going on are finished, but in

the meanwhile it seems probable that the theory adopted by General

Pitt-Rivers is correct. He regarded Old Sarum as a British earthwork,

with an inner castle and outer barbicans added by the Normans. After

building this castle in the midst of it the Normans appear to have

considered the outer and larger fortification too valuable to be

given up to the public, but retained it under the government of the

castellan, and treated it as part of the castle.

There is no mention of the castle of Salisbury in Domesday Book, but

the bishop is named as the owner of the manor.[639] The episcopal see

of Sherborne was transferred to Sarum in 1076 by Bishop Hermann, in

accordance with the policy adopted by William I. that episcopal sees

should be removed from villages to towns:[640] a measure which in

itself is a testimony to the importance of Salisbury at that time.

The first mention of the castle is in the charter of Bishop Osmund,

1091.[641] The bishop was allowed to lay the foundations of his new

cathedral within the ancient fortress. As might be expected, friction

soon arose between the castellans and the ecclesiastics; the castellans

claimed the custody of the gates, and sometimes barred the canons,

whose houses seem to have been outside the fortress, from access to

the church. These quarrels were ended eventually by the removal of the

cathedral to the new town of Salisbury at the foot of the hill.

[Illustration: FIG. 30. Old Sarum, Wilts.]

The position of the motte of Old Sarum is exceptional, as it stands in

the centre of the outer fortress. This must be owing to the position

of the ancient vallum, encircling the summit of one of those round,

gradually sloping hills so common in the chalk ranges, which made it

necessary to place the motte in the centre, because it was the highest

part of the ground. The present excavations have shown that it is in

part artificial. But though the citadel was thus exceptionally placed,

the principle that communication with the outside must be maintained

was carried out; the motte had its own bailey, reaching to the outer

vallum. The remains of three cross banks still exist, two of which must

have enclosed the _magnum ballium_ which is spoken of in the _Pipe

Rolls_ of Henry II. Probably this bailey occupied the south-eastern

third of the circle, which included the main gateway and the road to

the citadel. In the ditch on the north side of this enclosure, an

arched passage, apparently of Norman construction, was found in 1795;

it was doubtless a postern or sallyport.[642] The main entrance is

defended by a separate mount with its own ditch, which is conjectured

to be of later date than the vallum itself. The area of the top of the

motte is about 1-3/4 acres, a larger size than usual, but not larger

than that of several other important castles.[643] In Leland's time

there was "much notable ruinous building" still remaining of this

fortress, and the excavations have already revealed the lower portions

of some splendid walls and gateways, and the basement of a late Norman

keep which presents some unusual features.[644] The earthworks,

however, bear witness to a former wooden stockade both to the citadel

and the outer enclosure. The top of the motte is still surrounded by

high earthen banks.

As that great building bishop, Roger of Salisbury (1099-1139), is

said to have environed the castle with a new wall,[645] it would

seem likely that he was the first to transform the castle from wood

to stone. But in Henry II.'s reign, we find an entry in the _Pipe

Rolls_ for materials for enclosing the great bailey. An order for the

destruction of the castle had been issued by Stephen,[646] but it is

doubtful whether it was carried out. The sums spent by Henry II. on the

castle do not amount to more than £266, 12s. 5d., but the work recently

excavated which appears to be of his date is very extensive indeed.

The mention of a small wooden tower in Richard I.'s reign shows that

some parts of the defences were still of wood at that date.[647]

Timber and rods for _hoarding_ the castle, that is, for the wooden

machicolations placed at the tops of towers and walls, were ordered at

the end of John's reign.[648]

It is not known when the castle was abandoned, but the list of

castellans ceases in the reign of Henry VI., when it was granted to

the Stourton family.[649] Though the earls of Salisbury were generally

the custodians of Sarum Castle, except in the time of Bishop Roger, it

was always considered a royal castle, while the manor belonged to the

bishop.[650] It is remarked in the _Hundred Rolls_ of Henry III., that

no one holds fiefs for ward in this castle, and that nothing belonged

to the castle outside the gate.[651]

The value of the manor of Salisbury appears to have risen very greatly

since the Conquest.[652]

SHREWSBURY (Fig. 31).--The passage in Domesday Book relating to this

town has been called by Mr Round one of the most important in the

Survey, and it is of special importance for our present purpose. "The

English burghers of Shrewsbury say that it is very grievous to them

that they have to pay all the geld which they paid in King Edward's

time, although the castle of the earl occupies [the site of] 51 houses,

and another 50 are uninhabited."[653] It is incomprehensible how in the

face of such a clear statement as this, that the new castle occupied

the site of fifty-one houses, anyone should be found gravely to

maintain that the motte at Shrewsbury was an English work; for if the

motte stood there before, what was the clearance of houses made for?

The only answer could be to enlarge the bailey. But this is exactly

what the Norman would not wish to do; he would want only a small

area for the small force at his disposal for defence. Shrewsbury was

certainly a borough (that is, a fortified town) in Anglo-Saxon times;

probably it was one of the towns fortified by Ethelfleda, though it

is not mentioned by name in the list of those towns furnished by the

_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_.[654] Its ancient walls were certainly only

of earth and wood, for a writ of 1231 says that the old stockade and

the old bretasche of the old ditch of the town of Shrewsbury are to be

granted to the burghers for strengthening the new ditch.[655]

The castle of Shrewsbury was built on the neck of the peninsula on

which the town stands, and on the line of the town walls. The oval

motte, which still remains, stands, as usual, on the line of the castle

banks, and slopes steeply down to the Severn on one side. Its nearness

to the river made it liable to damage by floods. Thus we find Henry

II. spending 5_l._ on the repair of the motte,[656] and in Edward I.'s

reign the abbot's mill is accused of having caused damage to the extent

of 60 marks to the motte. But the men of the hundred exonerate the

mill, and from another passage the blame appears to lie on the fall of

a great wooden tower.[657] This can hardly have been other than the

wooden keep on the motte, and thus we learn the interesting fact that

as late as Edward I.'s reign the castle of Shrewsbury had only a

wooden keep. The present tower on the motte is the work of Telford.

[Illustration: FIG. 31. Shrewsbury. Skipsea, Yorks.]

The bailey of Shrewsbury Castle is roughly semilunar and covers nearly

an acre. The walls stand on banks, which shows that the first wall was

of timber. The Norman entrance arch seems to render it probable that it

was in Henry II.'s reign that stone walls were first substituted for a

wooden stockade, and the _Pipe Rolls_ contain several entries of sums

spent by Henry on this castle.[658] But the first mention of stone in

connection with the castle is in the reign of Henry III.[659] In the

reign of Edward I., a _jarola_ or wooden wall, which had been raised

above the outer ditch in the time of the Barons' War, was replaced

by a stone wall.[660] This perhaps refers to the second bailey, now

destroyed, which lay to the south of the castle. In the time of Charles

I. the castle still had a wooden palisade on the counterscarp of the

ditch.[661] The two large drum towers on the walls, and the building

between them, now converted into a modern house, belong to a much later

period than the walls. The area of the present castle, including the

motte, is 4/5 of an acre.

The value of the town of Shrewsbury had risen since the Conquest.

SKIPSEA, Yorks (Fig. 31).--There is no mention of this castle in

Domesday Book, but the chronicle of Meaux Abbey tells us that it

was built by Drogo de Bevrère in the reign of William I.[662] This

chronicle is not indeed contemporary, but its most recent editor

regards it as based on some much earlier document. It was the key of

the great manor of Holderness, which the Conqueror had given to Drogo,

but which Drogo forfeited by murdering his wife, probably on this very

site. The situation of Skipsea is remarkable, but the original plan of

Kenilworth Castle presented a close parallel to it. The motte, which

is 46 feet high, and 1/5 of an acre in space on top, is separated from

the bailey by a level space, which was formerly the Mere of Skipsea,

mentioned in documents of the 13th century, which reckon the take of

eels in this mere as a source of revenue.[663] The motte thus formed

an island in the mere, but as an additional defence--perhaps when the

mere began to get shallow--it was surrounded by a bank and ditch of its

own. No masonry is to be seen on the motte now, except a portion of a

wing wall going down it. It is connected with its bailey on the other

side of the mere by a causeway which still exists. This bailey is of

very unusual size, covering 8-1/4 acres; its banks still retain the

name of the Baile Welts, and one of the entrances is called the Baile

Gate. Skipsea Brough, which no doubt represents the former _burgus_

of Skipsea, is outside this enclosure, and has no defences of its

own remaining. A mandate of Henry III. in 1221, ordered the complete

destruction of this castle,[664] and it was no doubt after this that

the earls of Albemarle, who had succeeded to Drogo's estates, removed

their _caput baroniæ_ to Burstwick.[665]

The value of the manor of Cleeton, in which Skipsea lies, had fallen at

Domesday.[666]

STAFFORD (Fig. 32).--The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ says that Ethelfleda

of Mercia built the _burh_ of Stafford; and consequently we find that

both in King Edward and King William's time Stafford was a burgus,

or fortified town. Florence of Worcester, who is considered to have

used a superior copy of the _Chronicle_ as the foundation of his work,

says that Ethelfleda built an _arx_ on the north bank of the Sowe

in 914. _Arx_, in our earlier chronicles, is often only a bombastic

expression for a walled town, as, for example, when Ethelwerd says

that Ethelfleda's body was buried in St Peter's porch in the _arx_

of Gloucester.[667] But the statement led many later writers, such

as Camden, to imagine that Ethelfleda built a _tower_ in the town of

Stafford; and these imaginings have created such a tangled skein of

mistake that we must bespeak our readers' patience while we attempt to

unravel it.

Domesday Book only mentions Stafford Castle under the manor of Chebsey,

a possession of Henry de Ferrers. Its words are: "To this manor

_belonged_ the land of Stafford, in which the king commanded a castle

to be built, which is now destroyed."[668] Ordericus also says that the

king placed a castle at Stafford, on his return from his third visit to

the north, in 1070.[669] Now the language of Domesday appears to us to

say very plainly that in the manorial rearrangement which followed the

Conquest some land was taken out of the manor of Chebsey, which lies

immediately to the south of the borough of Stafford, to furnish a site

for a royal castle.[670] It is exactly in this position that we now

find a large oblong motte, similar to the other mottes of the Conquest,

and having the usual bailey attached to it. It lies about a mile and a

half south-west of the town, near the main road leading into Shropshire.

The position was an important one, as the castles of Staffordshire

formed a second line of defence against the North Welsh, as well as

a check to the great palatinate earls of Shropshire.[671] The motte

itself stood on high ground, commanding a view of twenty or thirty

miles round, and both Tutbury and Caus castles could be seen from

it. Between it and the town lies a stretch of flat ground which has

evidently been a swamp formerly, and which explains the distance of the

castle from the town; while the fact that it lies to the _south_ of the

Sowe shows that it has no connection with Ethelfleda's work. There is

no dispute that this motte was the site of the later baronial castle of

Stafford, the castle besieged and taken in the Civil War; the point we

have to prove is that it was also the castle of Domesday Book.[672]

[Illustration: FIG. 32. Stafford. Stanton Holgate, Salop. Tamworth,

Staffs. Tickhill, Yorks.]

If the first castle of Stafford was of earth and wood, like most of

William's castles, there would be nothing wonderful in its having

many destructions and many resurrections. This castle was clearly a

royal castle, from the language of Domesday Book. As a royal castle

it would be committed to the custody of the sheriff, who appears to

have been Robert de Stafford,[673] ancestor of the later barons of

Stafford, and brother of Ralph de Todeni, one of the great nobles

of the Conquest. Ralph joined the party of Robert Curthose against

Henry I. in 1101, and it is conjectured that his brother Robert was

involved in the same rebellion, for in that year we find the castle

held for the king by William Pantolf, a trusty companion of the

Conqueror.[674] It is very unlikely that this second castle of Stafford

was on a different site from the one which had been destroyed; and an

ingenious conjecture of Mr Mazzinghi's helps us to identify it with

the castle on the motte. In that castle, when it again emerges into

light in the reign of Henry II., we find a chapel dedicated to St

Nicholas, which Robert de Stafford gives to the abbey of Stone, and the

king confirms the gift.[675] The worship of St Nicholas came greatly

into fashion after the translation of his remains from Asia Minor to

Bari, in Italy, in 1087. William Pantolf visited the shrine at Bari,

got possession of some of the relics of St Nicholas, and with great

reverence deposited them in his own church of Noron, in Normandy.[676]

It is therefore extremely probable that Pantolf founded the chapel

of St Nicholas in Stafford Castle during the time that the castle

was in his custody.[677] But about the situation of the chapel of St

Nicholas there is no doubt, as its history is traceable down to the

16th century. It stood in the bailey of the castle outside the town.

This castle was therefore certainly identical with that of Henry II.,

and most probably with that of Henry I. and William I.

So far, as we have seen, Stafford Castle was a royal castle. It is true

that in the reign of Henry II.'s predecessor, Stephen, we find the

castle again in the hands of a Robert de Stafford, who speaks of it

as "castellum meum."[678] Apparently the troubles of Stephen's reign

afforded an opportunity to the family of the first Norman sheriff to

get the castle again into their hands. But under the stronger rule

of Henry II. the crown recovered its rights, and the gift of the

chapel in the castle evidently could not be made without the consent

of the king. The gaol which Henry II. caused to be made in Stafford

was doubtless in this castle.[679] John repaired the castle,[680]

and ordered _bretasches_, or wooden towers, to be made in the forest

of Arundel, and sent to Stafford:[681] a statement which gives us an

insight into the nature of the castle in John's reign. But it was

the tendency of sheriffdoms to become hereditary, as Dr Stubbs has

pointed out,[682] and this seems to have been the case at Stafford. In

the reign of Edward I. a local jury decided that Nicholas, Baron of

Stafford, held the castle of Stafford from the king _in capite_, by the

service of three and a half knights' fees;[683] and in 1348, Ralph,

Baron of Stafford, obtained a license from Edward III. "to fortify and

crenellate his _manses_ of Stafford and Madlee with a wall of stone and

lime, and to make castles thereof."[684] The indenture made with the

mason a year previously is still extant, and states that the castle

is to be built upon the _moële_ in the manor, whereby the motte is

evidently meant.[685] Besides, the deed is dated "at the Chastel of

Stafford," showing that the new castle of stone and lime was on the

site of an already existing castle.

We might spin out further evidence of the identity of the site of

William's castle with that of the present one, from the name of the

manor of Castel, which grew up around it, displacing the equally

suggestive name of Montville, which we find in Domesday Book.[686]

Against the existence of another castle in the town we have the absence

of any such castle in William Smith's plan of 1588; the silence of

Speed and Leland, who only mention the present castle;[687] and the

statement of Plot, who wrote about the end of the 17th century,

that "he could not hear any footsteps remaining" of a castle in

Stafford.[688] We may therefore safely conclude that it was only due to

the fancy of some Elizabethan antiquary that in an old map of that time

a spot to the south-west of the town is marked with the inscription,

"The old castle, built by Edward the Elder, and in memorie fortified

with reel walls."[689]

The value of Stafford town had risen at the time of the Survey, as the

king had 7_l._ for his share, which would make the whole revenue to

king and earl 10_l._ 10_s._, as against 9_l._ before the Conquest. The

property of the canons of Stafford had risen from £1 to £3.[690]

The area of the bailey is 1-3/5 acres.

STAMFORD, Lincoln and Northants.--This was one of the boroughs

fortified by Edward the Elder, and consequently we find it a royal

_burgus_ at the time of the Survey. But Edward's borough, the

_Chronicle_ tells us, was on the south side of the Welland; the

northern borough, on the other side, may have been the work of the

Danes, as Stamford was one of the towns of the Danish confederacy of

the Five Boroughs. The Norman castle and its motte are on the north

side, and five _mansiones_ were destroyed for the site.[691] There is

at present no appearance of masonry on the motte, which is partly cut

away, and what remains of the castle wall is of the 13th century. It

is therefore probable that the _turris_, or keep, which surrendered to

Henry II. in 1153, was of wood.[692] Henry gave the castle to Richard

Humet, constable of Normandy, in 1155.[693] It was a very exceptional

thing that Henry should thus alienate a royal castle, and special

circumstances must have moved him to this act. The castle was destroyed

in Richard III.'s time, and the materials given to the convent of the

Carmelite Friars. It appears to have been within the town walls, with

a bailey stretching down to the river; this bailey is quadrangular.

An inquisition of 1341 states that "the site of the castle contains 2

acres."[694]

Stamford had risen enormously in value since the Conquest. "In King

Edward's time it paid 15_l._; now, it pays for _feorm_ 50_l._, and for

the whole of the king's dues it now pays 28_l._"[695]

STANTON, Stanton Long, in Shropshire (Fig. 32).--At the time of the

Survey, the Norman Helgot was Lord of Corve Dale, and had his castle

at Stanton.[696] The castle was afterwards known as Helgot's Castle,

corrupted into Castle Holdgate. The site has been much altered by the

building of a farmhouse in the bailey, but the motte still exists,

high and steep, with a ditch round about half its circumference;

there are some traces of masonry on the top. One side of the bailey

ditch is still visible, and a mural tower of Edwardian style has

been incorporated with the farmhouse. The exact area cannot now be

calculated, but it can hardly have exceeded 2-1/2 acres. The manor of

Stanton was an agglomeration of four small manors which had been held

by different proprietors in Saxon times, so it was not the centre of a

soke. The value of the manor had risen.

TAMWORTH, Stafford (Fig. 32).--Although Tamworth Castle is not

mentioned in Domesday Book, it must have been in existence in the

11th century, as a charter of the Empress Matilda mentions that

Robert le Despenser, brother of Urso d'Abetot, had formerly held this

castle;[697] now Urso d'Abetot was a contemporary of the Conqueror,

and so must his brother have been. Tamworth Castle stands on a motte

50 feet high, and 100 feet in diameter across the top, according to

Mr Clark. It is an interesting instance of what is commonly called a

shell keep, with a stone tower; one of the instances which suggest that

the shell did not belong to a different type of castle to the tower,

but was simply a ward wall, which probably at first enclosed a wooden

tower. The tower and wall (or chemise) are probably late Norman, but

the remarkable wing wall (there is only one, instead of the usual two)

which runs down the motte is entirely of herring-bone work, and _may_

be as old as Henry I.'s time.[698] A bailey court, which cannot have

been large, lay between the motte and the river Tame, but its outline

cannot now be determined, owing to the encroachments of buildings.

Tamworth is about a mile from the great Roman road known as Watling

Street. We have already referred to the fortification of the _burh_

here by Ethelfleda;[699] probably she only restored walls or banks

which had existed before round this ancient capital of Mercia.

The value of the manor of Tamworth is not given in Domesday Book.

TICKHILL, Yorks (Fig. 32).--The name Tickhill does not occur in

Domesday, but it is covered by that of Dadesley, the manor in which

this castle was built: a name which appears to have gone out of use

when the _hill_ was thrown up. There can be no doubt that it was the

castle of Roger de Busli, one of the most richly endowed of William's

tenants-in-chief, as it is mentioned as such by Ordericus.[700] He

calls it the castle of Blythe, a name which it probably received

because Blythe was the most important place near, and Dadesley was so

insignificant. Florence of Worcester, when describing the same events,

calls the castle Tykehill. The remains furnish an excellent specimen of

the earthworks of this class. The motte is 75 feet high, and its area

on top about 80 feet in diameter; about a third of it is natural, the

rest artificial. Only a slight trace remains of the ditch separating

it from the oval bailey, which covers 2 acres. The foundations of a

decagonal tower, built in the reign of Henry II., are still to be seen

on the top.[701] The bailey retains its banks on the scarp, surmounted

now by a stone curtain, which, along with the older part of the

gatehouse, is possibly of the time of Henry I.[702] The outer ditch

is about 30 feet broad, and is still full of water in parts. On the

counterscarp a portion of the bank remains. This bank carried a wooden

palisade when the castle was besieged by Cromwell.[703] The site is

not naturally defensible; it is about three and a half miles from the

northern Roman road.

The value of the manor of Dadesley had risen at the time of the

Survey.[704] The stone buildings which once stood in the bailey have

been transformed into a modern house.

TONBRIDGE, Kent (Fig. 33).--This notable castle, the first English

seat of the powerful family who afterwards took their name from Clare

in Suffolk, is first mentioned in 1088, when it was stormed by William

Rufus and his English subjects, who had adopted his cause against the

supporters of his brother Robert.[705] The castle was one of great

importance at several crises in English history; but it began as a

wooden keep on a motte, and the stone shell which now crowns this motte

cannot be earlier than the 12th century, and judging by its buttresses,

is much later. The castle stands outside the town of Tonbridge,

separated from it by moats which were fed from the river. The smaller

bailey of 1-1/2 acres, probably the original one, is square, with

rounded corners. The palatial gatehouse, of the 13th or 14th century,

is a marked feature of this castle. There appears to have been only

one wing wall down the motte to the bailey, but a second one was not

needed, owing to the position of the motte with regard to the river.

The value of the manor of Hadlow, in which Tonbridge lay, was

stationary at Domesday.[706] It belonged to the see of Canterbury, and

was held by Richard de Bienfaite, ancestor of the House of Clare, as

a tenant of the see.

[Illustration: FIG. 33. Tonbridge, Kent. Totnes, Devon.]

TOTNES, Devonshire (Fig. 33).--The castle of Totnes belonged to

Judhael, one of King William's men, who has been already mentioned

under Barnstaple. This castle is not noticed in Domesday Book, but

its existence in the 11th century is made certain by a charter of

Judhael's giving land _below his castle_ to the Benedictine priory

which he had founded at Totnes: a charter certainly of the Conqueror's

reign, as it contains a prayer for the health of King William.[707]

The site was an important one; Totnes had been one of the boroughs of

the _Burghal Hidage_; it was at the head of a navigable river, and was

the point where the ancient Roman (?) road from Devonshire to Bath and

the North began its course.[708] The motte of the castle is very high

and precipitous, and has a shell on top, which is perfect up to the

battlements, and appears to be rather late Norman. This keep is entered

in a very unusual way, by a flight of steps leading up from the bailey,

deeply sunk in the upper part into the face of the motte, so as to

form a highly defensible passage. Two wing walls run down to the walls

of the bailey. There is at present no ditch between the motte and the

bailey. The whole area of the work is 3/4 acre. It stands in a very

defensible situation on a spur of hill overlooking the town, and lies

just outside the ancient walls.

The value of the town of Totnes had risen at Domesday.[709]

THE TOWER OF LONDON.--Here, as at Colchester, there is no motte,

because the original design was that there should be a stone

keep. Ordericus tells us that after the submission of London to

William the Conqueror he stayed for a few days in Barking while

certain fortifications in the city were being finished, to curb the

excitability of the huge and fierce population.[710] What these

fortifications were we shall never know, but we may imagine they were

earthworks of the usual Norman kind.[711] Certainly the great keep

familiarly known as the White Tower was not built in a few days;

it does not appear to have been even begun till some eleven years

later, when Gundulf, a monk celebrated for his architectural skill,

was appointed to the see of Rochester. Gundulf was the architect of

the Tower,[712] and it must therefore have been built during his

episcopate, which lasted from 1077-1108.[713] In 1097 we read that

"many shires which owe works to London were greatly oppressed in making

the wall (weall) round the Tower."[714] This does not necessarily mean

a stone wall, but probably it does, as Gundulf's tower can hardly have

been without a bank and palisade to its bailey.

As the Tower in its general plan represents the type of keep which was

the model for all succeeding stone keeps up to the end of the 12th

century, it seems appropriate here to give some description of its

main features. Its resemblance to the keep of Colchester, which also

was a work of William I.'s reign, is very striking.[715] Colchester is

the larger of the two, but the Tower exceeds in size all other English

keeps, measuring 118 × 98 feet at its base.[716] As it has been altered

or added to in every century, its details are peculiarly difficult to

trace, especially as the ordinary visitor is not allowed to make a

thorough examination.[717] Thus much, however, is certain: neither of

the two present entrances on the ground floor is original; the first

entrance was on the first floor, some 25 feet above the ground, at the

S.W. angle of the south side, and has been transformed into a window.

There was no entrance to the basement, but it was only reached by

the grand staircase, which is enclosed in a round turret at the N.E.

angle. There were two other stairs at the N.W. and S.W. angles, but

these only began on the first floor. The basement is divided by a cross

wall, which is carried up to the third storey. There are at present

three storeys above the basement. The basement, which is now vaulted

in brick, was not originally vaulted at all, except the south-eastern

chamber, under the crypt of the chapel.

The first floor, like the basement, is divided into three rooms, as,

in addition to the usual cross wall, the Tower has a branch cross wall

to its eastern section, which is carried up to the top. This floor

was formerly only lit by loopholes; Clark states that there were two

fireplaces in the east wall, but there is some doubt about this. The

S.E. room contained the crypt of the chapel, which was vaulted. It

is commonly supposed that the rooms on the first floor were occupied

by the guards of the keep. In the account which we have quoted from

Lambert of Ardres, the first floor is said to be the lord's habitation,

and the upper storey that of the guards; so that there seems to have

been no invariable rule.[718] No special room was allotted to the

kitchen, as in time of peace at any rate, the lord of the castle and

all his retainers took their meals in a great hall in the bailey of the

castle.[719] The ceilings of the two larger rooms of this floor are now

supported by posts, an arrangement which is probably modern, as the

present posts certainly are.[720]

The second floor contains the chapel, which in many keeps is merely

an oratory, but is here of unusual size. Its eastern end is carried

out in a round apse, a feature which is also found at Colchester, but

is not usual in Norman keeps.[721] It is a singularly fine specimen

of an early Norman chapel. This floor probably contained the royal

apartments; it was lighted by windows, not loops. Both the eastern and

western rooms had fireplaces; the eastern room goes by the name of the

Banqueting Chamber.

The third storey is on a level with the triforium of the chapel.[722]

This triforium is continued all round the keep as a mural passage, and

it has windows only slightly smaller than those of the floor below.

These mural galleries are found in most important keeps. As their

windows were of larger size than the loops which lit the lower floors,

it is possible that they may have been used for defence, either for

throwing down missiles or for shooting with bows and arrows. But no

near aim could be taken without a downward splay to the window, and

the bows of the 11th and 12th centuries were incapable of a long

aim. A plausible theory is that they were intended for the march of

sentinels.[723]

The masonry of the Tower is of Kentish rag, with ashlar quoins. In

mediæval times it had a forebuilding, with a round stair turret, which

is shown in some old views; but it may reasonably be doubted whether

this was an original feature.

As regards the ground plan of the castle as a whole, it is now

concentric, but was not so originally. The Tower was certainly placed

in the S.E. angle of the Roman walls of London, and very near the east

wall, portions of which have been discovered.[724] The conversion

of the castle into one of the concentric type was the work of later

centuries, and the history of its development has still to be

traced.[725]

TREMATON, Cornwall (Fig. 34).--"The Count [of Mortain] has a castle

there and a market, rendering 101 shillings."[726] Two Cornish castles

are mentioned in Domesday, and both of them are only on the borders

of that wild Keltic country; but while Launceston is inland, Trematon

guards an inlet on the south coast. The position of this castle is

extremely strong by nature, at the end of a high headland; on the

extreme point of this promontory the motte is placed. It carries a

well-preserved shell wall, which may be of Norman date, from the

plain round arch of the entrance.[727] It has been separated by a

ditch from the bailey, but the steepness of the hill rendered it

unnecessary to carry this ditch all round. The bailey, 1 acre in

extent, in which a modern house is situated, still has an entrance

gate of the 13th century, and part of a mediæval wall. A second

bailey, now a rose-garden, has been added at a later period. In spite

of the establishment of a castle and a market the value of the

manor of Trematon had gone down at the time of the Survey, which may

be accounted for by the fact that there were only ten ploughs where

there ought to have been twenty-four. It was only a small manor, and no

burgus is mentioned.

[Illustration: FIG. 34. Trematon, Cornwall. Tutbury, Staffs.]

TUTBURY, Staffordshire (Fig. 34).--In the magnificent earthworks of

this castle, and the strength of its site, we probably see a testimony

to the ability of Hugh d'Avranches; for we learn from Ordericus that in

1070 William I. gave to Henry de Ferrers the castle of Tutbury, which

had belonged to Hugh d'Avranches,[728] to whom the king then gave the

more dangerous but more honourable post of the earldom of Chester.

Domesday Book simply states that Henry de Ferrers has the castle of

Tutbury, and that there are forty-two men living by their merchandise

alone in the borough round the castle.[729]

At Tutbury the keep was placed on an artificial motte, which itself

stood on a hill of natural rock, defended on the N.W. side by

precipices. There is no trace of any ditch between the motte and

bailey. At present there is only the ruin of a comparatively modern

tower on the motte, but Shaw states that there was formerly a stone

keep.[730] A description of Elizabeth's reign says, "The castle is

situated upon a round hill, and is circumvironed with a strong wall

of astilar [ashlar] stone.... The king's lodging therein is fair and

strong, bounded and knit to the wall. And a fair stage hall of timber,

of a great length. Four chambers of timber, and other houses well

upholden, within the walls of the castle."[731] The king's lodging

will no doubt be the closed gatehouse; the custom of erecting gatehouse

palaces arose as early as the 13th century. This account shows how many

of the castle buildings were still of timber in Elizabeth's reign.

The bailey is quadrant-shaped, and has the motte at its apex. Its area

is 2-1/2 acres. Its most remarkable feature is that it still retains

its ancient banks on the east side and part of the south, and the

more recent curtain is carried on top of them. This curtain is of the

same masonry as the three remaining towers, which are of excellent

Perpendicular work, and are generally attributed to John of Gaunt,

who held this castle after his marriage with Blanche of Lancaster.

The first castle was undoubtedly of wood; it was pulled down by

order of Henry I. in 1175,[732] nor does there seem to have been any

resurrection till the time of Earl Thomas of Lancaster at the earliest.

Though Tutbury was the centre of the Honour of Ferrers, it does not

seem to have been even a manor in Saxon times. The borough was probably

the creation of the castellan, who also founded the Priory.[733] There

is no statement in the Survey from which we can learn the value T. R.

E., but T. R. W. it was 4_l._ 10_s._

TYNEMOUTH, Northumberland.--Besieged and taken by William Rufus in

1095.[734] There is no motte there, and probably never was one, as the

situation is defended by precipitous cliffs on all sides but one, where

a deep ditch has been cut across the neck of the headland.

[Illustration: FIG. 35. Wallingford, Berks.]

WALLINGFORD, Berkshire (Fig. 35).--There is good reason to suppose

that in the _vallum_ of the town of Wallingford we have an interesting

relic of Saxon times. Wallingford is one of the boroughs enumerated

in the _Burghal Hidage_; it was undoubtedly a fortified town at the

time of the Conquest,[735] and is called a _burgus_ in Domesday

Book; but there appears to be no evidence to connect it with Roman

times except the discovery of a number of Roman coins in the town

and its neighbourhood. No Roman buildings or pavements have ever

been found.[736] The Saxon borough was built on the model of a Roman

_chester_: a square with rounded corners. The rampart of Wallingford,

which still exists in great part, is entirely of earth, and must

have been crowned with a wooden wall, such as was still existing at

Portsmouth in Leland's time.[737] The accounts of Wallingford in the

great Survey are very full and important. "King Edward had eight

virgates in the borough of Wallingford, and in these there were 276

haughs paying 11_l._ of rent. Eight have been destroyed for the

castle."[738] This Norman castle was placed in the N.E. corner of

the borough. At present its precincts cover 30 acres,[739] but this

includes garden grounds, and no doubt represents later enclosures.

No ancient plan of the castle has been preserved, but from Leland's

description there appear to have been three wards in his time, each

defended by banks and ditches. The inner ward, which was doubtless

the original one, is rudely oblong in shape; it covers 4-1/2 acres.

Leland says, "All the goodly buildings, with the towers and dungeon,

be within the third dyke." The motte, which still exists, was on the

south-eastern edge of this ward; that is, it was so placed as to

overlook both the borough and the ford over the Thames.[740] It was

ditched around, and is said to have had a stone keep on the top; but

no foundations were found when it was recently excavated. It was found

to rest on a foundation of solid masonry several feet thick, sloping

upwards towards the outside, so that it must have stood in a kind of

stone saucer.[741] The masonry which remains in the other parts of the

castle is evidently none of it of the early Norman period, unless we

accept a fragment of wall which contains courses of tiles. Numerous

buildings were added in Henry III.'s reign; the walls and battlements

were repaired, and the _hurdicium_, which had been blown down by a high

wind, was renewed.[742] But the motte and the high banks show clearly

that the first Norman castle was of wood.

The value of the royal borough of Wallingford had considerably risen

since the Conquest.[743]

WARWICK (Fig. 36).--Here again we have a castle built on land which

the Conqueror obtained from a Saxon convent, a positive proof that

there was no castle there previously. Only a small number of houses

was destroyed for the castle,[744] and this points to the probability,

which is supported by some other evidence, that the castle was built

outside the town. Warwick, of course, was one of the boroughs fortified

by Ethelfleda, and it was doubtless erected to protect the Roman road

from Bath to Lincoln, the Foss Way, against the Danes. Domesday Book,

after mentioning that the king's barons have 112 houses in the borough,

and the abbot of Coventry 36, goes on to say that these houses belong

to the lands which the barons hold outside the city, and are rated

there.[745] This is one of the passages from which Professor Maitland

has concluded that the boroughs planted by Ethelfleda and her brother

were organised on a system of military defence, whereby the magnates

in the country were bound to keep houses in the towns.[746] Ordericus,

after the well-known passage in which he states that the lack of

castles in England was one great cause of its easy conquest by the

Normans, says: "The king _therefore_ founded a castle at Warwick, and

gave it in custody to Henry, son of Roger de Beaumont."[747] Putting

these various facts together, we may fairly assert that the motte

which still forms part of the castle of Warwick was the work of the

Conqueror, and not, as Mr Freeman believed, "a monument of the wisdom

and energy of the mighty daughter of Alfred,"[748] whose energy was

very much better employed in the protection of her people. Dugdale,

who also put the motte down to Ethelfleda, was only copying Rous, a

very imaginative writer of the 15th century.

The motte of Warwick is mentioned several times in the _Pipe Rolls_

of Henry II.; it then carried wooden structures on its top.[749] In

Leland's time there were still standing on this motte the ruins of a

keep, which he calls by its Norman name of the Dungeon. A fragment of

a polygonal shell wall still remains.[750] But there is not a scrap of

masonry of Norman date about the castle. The motte, and the earthen

bank which still runs along one side of the court, show that the first

castle was a wooden one. The bailey is oblong in shape, the motte being

outside it; its area is about 2-1/2 acres.

The value of Warwick had doubled since the Conquest.

[Illustration: FIG. 36. Warwick. Wigmore, Hereford.]

WIGMORE, Herefordshire (Fig. 36).--We have already referred to the

absurdity of identifying this place with the _Wigingamere_ of the

_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_.[751] We have the strongest indication that the

Norman castle at Wigmore was a new erection, since Domesday Book tells

us that William FitzOsbern built it on waste land called Mereston.[752]

This express statement disposes of the fable in the _Fundationis

Historia_ of Wigmore Priory, that the castle of Wigmore had belonged

to Edric the Wild, and was rebuilt by Ralph Mortimer.[753] Wigmore had

only been a small manor of two taxable hides in Saxon times. Whereas

it had then been unproductive, at the date of the Survey there were two

ploughs in the demesne, and the borough attached to the castle yielded

7_l._ Here we have another instance of the planting of a borough close

to a castle, and of the revenue which was thus obtained.

There is a very large and high motte at Wigmore Castle, of oval shape,

on a headland which has been cut off by a deep ditch. The earthen

banks of its first fortification still remain, enclosing a small ward,

but on top of them is a wall in masonry, and the ruins of a polygonal

keep;[754] also the remains of two mural towers. Half-way down the end

of the headland, below the motte, is a small square court, which _may_

have been the original bailey; below it, again, is a larger half-moon

bailey furnished with walls and towers. But the whole area covered

is only 1 acre. The masonry is none of it earlier than the Decorated

period, except one tower in the bailey wall which may be late Norman.

[Illustration: FIG. 37. Winchester. (From a plan by W. Godson, 1750.)]

WINCHESTER, Hants.--We include Winchester among the castles mentioned

or alluded to in Domesday Book, because we think it can be proved that

the _domus regis_ mentioned under Alton and Clere is the castle built

by William outside the west gate of the city, where the present County

Hall is now almost the only remaining relic of any castle at all.[755]

Under the head of "Aulton" we are told that the abbot of Hyde had

unjustly gotten the manor in exchange for the king's house, because

by the testimony of the jurors it was already the king's house.[756]

That _excambio domus regis_ should read _excambio terræ domus regis_

is clear from the corresponding entry under Clere, where the words

are _pro excambio terræ in qua domus regis est in civitate_.[757] The

matter is put beyond a doubt by the confirmatory charter of Henry I. to

Hyde Abbey, where the king states that his father gave Aulton and Clere

to Hyde Abbey _in exchange for the land on which he built his hall in

the city of Winchester_.[758] Where, then, was this hall, which was

clearly new, since fresh land was obtained for it, and which must not

therefore be sought on the site of the palace of the Saxon kings? The

_Liber Winton_, a roll of Henry I.'s time, says that twelve burgesses'

houses had been destroyed and the land was now occupied by the king's

house.[759] Another passage says that a whole street _outside the west

gate_ was destroyed when the king made his ditch.[760] These passages

justify the conclusion of Mr Smirke that the king's house at Winchester

was neither more nor less than the castle which existed until the 17th

century outside the west gate.[761] Probably the reason why it is

spoken of so frequently in the earliest documents as the king's house

or hall, instead of the castle, is that in this important city, the

ancient capital of Wessex, where the king "wore his crown" once a

year, William built, besides the usual wooden keep on the motte, a

stone hall in the bailey, of size and dignity corresponding to the

new royalty.[762] In fact, the hall so magnificently transformed by

Henry III., and known to be the old hall of the castle, can be seen

on careful examination to have still its original Norman walls and

other traces of early Norman work.[763] The palace of the Saxon kings

stood, where we might expect to find the palace of native princes,

in the middle of the city; according to Milner it was on the site of

the present Square.[764] William may have repaired this palace, but

that he constructed two royal houses, a palace and a castle, is highly

improbable. The castle became the residence of the Norman kings, and

the Saxon palace appears to have been neglected.[765] We see with what

caution the Conqueror placed his castle at the royal city of Wessex

without the walls. Milner tells us that there was no access to it from

the city without passing through the west gate.[766] The motte of the

castle appears to have been standing in his time, as he speaks of "the

artificial mount on which the keep stands."[767] It is frequently

mentioned in mediæval documents as the _beumont_ or _beau mont_. It

was surrounded by its own ditch.[768] The bailey, if Speed's map is

correct, was triangular in shape. With its ditches and banks the castle

covered 6 acres, according to the commissioners who reported on it in

Elizabeth's reign; but the inner area cannot have been more than 4-1/2

acres. We may infer from the sums spent on this castle by Henry II.,

that he was the first to give it walls and towers of stone; the _Pipe

Rolls_ show entries to the amount of 1150_l._ during the course of his

reign; the work of the walls is frequently specified, and stone is

mentioned.

Domesday Book does not inform us whether the value of Winchester had

risen or fallen since the Conquest.

[Illustration: FIG. 38. Windsor Castle (From Ashmole's "Order of the

Garter.")]

WINDSOR (Fig. 38).--Here we have another of the interesting cases in

which the geld due from the tenant of a manor is lessened on account

of a castle having occupied a portion of the land.[769] The Survey

tells us that the castle of Windsor sits in half a hide belonging

to the manor of Clewer, which had become William's property as part

of the spoils of Harold. It was _now_ held of the king by a Norman

tenant-in-chief, but whereas it was formerly rated as five hides it

was now (that is, probably, since the castle was built) rated as four

and a half hides. Of course we are not to suppose that the castle

occupied the whole half hide, which might be some 60 acres; but it

extinguished the liability of that portion. At Windsor, however, we

have no occasion to press this argument as a proof that the castle was

new, since it is well established that the palace of the Saxon kings

was at least 2 miles from the present castle and town, in the village

long known as Old Windsor, which fell into decay as the town of Windsor

sprang up under the Norman castle.[770] The manor of Windsor was given

by Edward the Confessor to the convent of Westminster, but recovered by

the Conqueror.[771] But as the Survey shows us, he did not build his

castle in the manor of Windsor, but in that of Clewer. He built it for

a hunting-seat,[772] and it may have been for the purpose of recovering

forest rights that he resumed possession of Old Windsor; but he placed

his castle in the situation which he thought best for defence. For even

a hunting-seat in Norman times was virtually a castle, as many other

instances show.

It is needless to state that there is no masonry at Windsor of the

time of the Conqueror, or even of the time of his son Henry I., in

spite of the statement of Stowe that Henry "new builded the castle

of Windsor." This statement may perhaps be founded on a passage in

the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ which says that Henry held his court for

the first time in the New Windsor in 1110. Perhaps the _Chronicle_

here refers to the _borough_ of New Windsor, as an entry in the _Pipe

Roll_ of Henry I. seems to show that he was the first to enclose the

_burgus_ of Windsor.[773] For it is probable that the first stone

castle at Windsor was built by Henry II., who spent £1670 on it in the

course of his reign. One of his first acts after his accession was an

exchange of land at Windsor, which seems to have been for the purpose

of a vineyard, and was possibly the origin of the second bailey.[774]

At present the position of the motte is central to the rest of the

castle, but this is so unusual that it suggests the idea that the upper

ward is the oldest, and that the motte stood on its outer edge. Henry

II. surrounded the castle with a wall, at a cost of about 128_l._[775]

The other entries in the _Pipe Rolls_ probably refer to the first

stone shell on the motte, and there is little doubt that the present

Round Tower, though its height has been raised in modern times, and

its masonry re-dressed and re-pointed so as to destroy all appearance

of antiquity, is in the main of Henry II.'s building. The frequent

payments for stone show the nature of Henry's work.

Although so much masonry was put up in Henry II.'s reign, the greater

part of what is now visible is not older than the time of Henry III.

The lower bailey seems to have been enlarged in his reign, as the

castle ditch was extended towards the town, and compensation given

for houses taken down.[776] The upper (probably the original) ward is

rectangular in shape, and with the motte and its ditches covers about

6-1/2 acres.[777] The state apartments, a chapel, and the Hall of

St George, are in the upper ward, showing that this was the site of

the original hall and chapel of the castle. The charter of agreement

between Stephen and Henry in 1153 speaks of the _motte_ of Windsor as

equivalent to the castle.[778] Repairs of the motte are mentioned in

the _Pipe Rolls_ of Henry II.[779]

The value of the manor of Clewer had fallen since the Conquest; that of

Windsor, which was worth 15_l._ T. R. E., but after the Conquest fell

to 7_l._, was again worth 15_l._ at the date of the Survey.[780]

WISBEACH, Cambridgeshire.--William I. built a castle here in 1072,

after suppressing the revolt of Hereward, in order to hold in check the

Cambridgeshire fen country.[781] There is an early mention of it in

the Register of Thorney Abbey. This castle, after being several times

rebuilt, is now completely destroyed, and "several rows of elegant

houses built on the site." Nevertheless, there still remain distinct

traces of the motte-and-bailey pattern in the gardens which now occupy

the site of the original castle of King William; the present Crescent

probably follows the line of the ditch. The meagre indications

preserved in casual accounts confirm this. There was an inner castle

of about 2 acres, just the area of the present garden enclosure, and

an outer court, probably an addition, of some 4 acres.[782] Both areas

were moated. Weston, a prisoner who was confined in the keep of this

castle in the 17th century, has left an account of his captivity,

in which he casually mentions that the keep or dungeon stood upon a

high terrace, from which he could overlook the outer bailey, and was

surrounded by a moat filled with water.[783]

The castle is not mentioned in Domesday, but as might be expected in a

district which had been so ravaged by war, the value of the manor had

fallen.

WORCESTER.--This borough, as we have seen, was fortified by Ethelfleda

and her husband Ethelred in the 9th century. That the fortifications

thus erected were those of a city and not of a castle is shown with

sufficient clearness by the remarkable charter of this remarkable pair,

in which they declare that they have built the _burh_ at Worcester to

shelter all the people, and the churches, and the bishop.[784] The

castle is first mentioned in the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ in 1088, and

it is to be noted that it is styled the king's castle. Urse d'Abitot,

the Norman sheriff of Worcester, has the credit of having built the

first castle, and Malmesbury relates that he seized part of the monks'

cemetery for the bailey.[785] The monks, however, held on to their

right, and in the first year of Henry III. the bailey was restored to

them by the guardians of the young king, the motte being reserved for

the king's use.[786] The first wooden castle was burnt in 1113.[787]

The tower or keep which succeeded it, and which was repaired by Henry

II.,[788] may have been either of stone or wood; but in the order of

John, that the gateway of the castle, which is of wood, is to be made

of stone, we get a hint of the gradual transformation of the castle

from a wooden to a stone fortress.[789]

Worcester Castle was outside the town, from Speed's map, and was near

the Severn. The area now called College Green was no doubt the outer

ward of the castle, which was restored to the convent by Henry III.

The tower called Edgar's Tower was built by the monks as the gatehouse

to their newly conceded close.[790] From the map given by Green, this

outer bailey appears to have been roughly square; but there was also

a small oblong inner ward, retained by the king, where the gaol was

afterwards built. The area of the castle is said to have been between

3 and 4 acres.[791] The motte, which is mentioned several times in

mediæval documents,[792] was completely levelled in 1848; it was then

found out that it had been thrown up over some previous buildings,

which were believed to be Roman, though this seems doubtful.[793]

The value of Worcester had risen since the Conquest.[794]

YORK (Fig. 39).--William the Conqueror built two castles at York, and

the mottes of both these castles remain, one underneath Clifford's

Tower, the keep of York Castle, the other, on the south side of the

Ouse, still bearing the name of the Baile Hill, or the Old Baile.[795]

The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ implies, though it does not directly

state, that both these castles were built in 1068, on the occasion of

William's first visit to York. The more detailed narrative of Ordericus

shows that one was built in 1068, and the other at the beginning of

1069, on William's second visit.[796] Both were destroyed in September

1069, when the English and Danes captured York, and both were rebuilt

before Christmas of the same year, when William held his triumphant

Christmas feast at York.

This speedy erection, destruction, and re-erection is enough to

prove that the castles of William in York were, like most other

Norman castles, hills of earth with buildings and stockades of wood,

especially as we find these hills of earth still remaining on the

known sites of the castles. And we may be quite sure that the Norman

masonry, which Mr Freeman pictures as so eagerly destroyed by the

English, never existed.[797] But the obstinate tendency of the human

mind to make things out older than they are has led to these earthen

hills being assigned to Britons, Romans, Saxons, Danes, anybody rather

than Normans. A single passage of William of Malmesbury, in which he

refers to the _castrum_ which the Danes had built at York in the reign

of Athelstan, is the sole vestige of basis for the theory that the

motte of Clifford's Tower is of Danish origin.[798] The other theories

have absolutely no foundation but conjecture. If Malmesbury was quoting

from some older source which is now lost, it is extremely probable

that the word _castrum_ which he copied, did not mean a castle in our

sense of the word at all, but was a translation of the word _burh_,

which almost certainly referred to a vallum or wall constructed round

the Danish suburb outside the walls of York. Such a suburb there was,

for there in 1055 stood the Danish church of St Olave, in which Earl

Siward was buried, and the suburb was long known as the Earlsburgh

or Earl's Burh, probably because it contained the residence of the

Danish earls of Northumbria.[799] This suburb was not anywhere near

Clifford's Tower, but in quite a different part of the city. To prove

that both the mottes were on entirely new sites, we have the assurance

of Domesday Book that out of the seven _shires_ or wards into which the

city was divided, one was laid waste for the castles; so that there

was clearly a great destruction of houses to make room for the new

castles.[800]

[Illustration: FIG. 39. York Castle and Baile Hill. (From a plan by P.

Chassereau, 1750.)]

What has been assumed above receives striking confirmation from

excavations made recently (1903) in the motte of Clifford's Tower.

At the depth of 13 feet were found remains of a wooden structure,

surmounted by a quantity of charred wood.[801] Now the accounts of

the destruction of the castles in 1069 do not tell us that they were

burned, but thrown down and broken to pieces.[802] But the keep

which was restored by William, and on the repair of which Henry II.

spent 15_l._ in 1172,[803] was burnt down in the frightful massacre

of the Jews at York Castle in 1190.[804] The excavations disclosed

the interesting fact that this castle stood on a lower motte than

the present one, and that when the burnt keep was replaced by a new

one the motte was raised to its present height, "an outer crust of

firmer and more clayey material being made round the older summit,

and a lighter material placed inside this crater to bring it up to

the necessary level." This restoration must have taken place in the

third year of Richard I., when 28_l._ was spent "on the work of the

castle."[805] This small sum shows that the new keep also was of wood;

and remains of timber work were in fact found on the top of the motte

during the excavations, though unfortunately they were not sufficiently

followed up to determine whether they belonged to a wooden tower or

to a platform intended to consolidate the motte.[806] It is extremely

likely that this third keep was blown down by the high wind of 1228,

when 2s. was paid "for collecting the timber of York Castle blown down

by the wind."[807] In its place arose the present keep, one of the

most remarkable achievements of the reign of Henry III.[808] The old

ground-plan of the square Norman keep was now abandoned, and replaced

by a quatrefoil. The work occupied thirteen years, from the 30th to

the 43rd Henry III., and the total sum expended was 1927_l._ 8_s._

7_d._, equal to about 40,000_l._ of our money. This remarkable fact has

slumbered in the unpublished _Pipe Rolls_ for 700 years, never having

been unearthed by any of the numerous historians of York.

The keep was probably the first work in stone at York Castle, and for

a long time it was probably the only defensive masonry. The banks

certainly had only a wooden stockade in the early part of Henry III.'s

reign, as timber from the forest of Galtres was ordered for the repair

of breaches in the _palicium_ in 1225.[809] As late as Edward II.'s

reign there was a _pelum_, or stockade, round the keep, on top of a

_murus_, which was undoubtedly an earthen bank.[810] At present the

keep occupies the whole top of the motte except a small _chemin de

ronde_, but the fact so frequently alluded to in the writs, that a

stockade ran round the keep, proves that a small courtyard existed

there formerly, as was usually the case with important keeps. Another

writ of Edward II.'s reign shows that the motte was liable to injury

from the floods of the River Fosse,[811] and probably its size has thus

been reduced.

The present bailey of York Castle does not follow the lines of the

original one, but is an enlargement made in 1825. A plan made in 1750,

and reproduced here, shows that the motte was surrounded by its own

ditch, which is now filled up, and that the bailey, around which a

branch of the Fosse was carried, was of the very common bean-shaped

form; it was about 3 acres in extent. The motte and bailey were both

considerably outside what is believed to have been the Anglo-Saxon

rampart of York,[812] but the motte was so placed as to overlook the

city.

The value of the city of York, in spite of the sieges and sacks which

it had undergone, and in spite of there being 540 houses "so empty

that they pay nothing at all," had risen at the date of the Survey

from 53_l_. in King Edward's time to 100_l._ in King William's.[813]

This extraordinary rise in value can only be attributed to increased

trade and increased exactions, the former being promoted by the greater

security given to the roads by the castles, the latter due to the tolls

on the high-roads and waterways, which belonged to the king, and the

various "customs" belonging to the castles, which, though new, were

henceforth equally part of his rights.

THE BAILE HILL, York (Fig. 39).--There can be no doubt whatever that

this still existing motte was the site of one of William's castles

at York, and it is even probable that it was the older of the two,

as Mr Cooper conjectures from its position on the south side of the

river.[814] The castle bore the name of the Old Baile at least as early

as the 14th century, perhaps even in the 12th.[815] In 1326 a dispute

arose between the citizens of York and Archbishop William de Melton as

to which of them ought to repair the wall around the Old Baile. The

mayor alleged that the district was under the express jurisdiction of

the archbishop, exempt from that of the city; the archbishop pleaded

that it stood within the ditches of the city.[816] The meaning of

this dispute can only be understood in the light of facts which have

recently been unearthed by the industry and observation of Mr T. P.

Cooper, of York.[817] The Old Baile, like so many of William's castles,

originally stood outside the ramparts of the city. The original Roman

walls of York (it is believed) enclosed only a small space on the

eastern shore of the Ouse, and before the Norman Conquest the city

had far outgrown these bounds, and therefore had been enlarged in

Anglo-Saxon times. It appears that the Micklegate suburb was then for

the first time enclosed with a wall, and as this district is spoken of

in Domesday Book as "the shire of the archbishop," it was evidently

under his jurisdiction. At a later period this wall was buried in an

earthen bank, which probably carried a palisade on top, until the

palisade was replaced by stone walls in the reign of Henry III.[818]

The evidence of the actual remains renders it more than probable that

this rampart turned towards the river at a point 500 feet short of

its present angle, so that the Old Baile, when first built, was quite

outside the city walls.[819] This is exactly how we should expect to

find a castle of William the Norman's in relation to one of the most

turbulent cities of the realm; and, as we have seen, the other castle

at York was similarly placed. By the time of Archbishop Melton the

south-western suburb was already enclosed in the new stone walls built

in the 13th century, and these walls had been carried along the west

and south banks of the Old Baile, so as to enclose that castle within

the city. This was the archbishop's pretext for trying to lay upon

the citizens the duty of maintaining the Old Baile. But probably on

account of his ancient authority in this part of the city, the cause

went against him; though he stipulated that whatever he did in the way

of fortification was of his own option, and was not to be accounted

a precedent. A contemporary chronicler says that he enclosed the Old

Baile first with stout planks 18 feet long, afterwards with a stone

wall:[820] an interesting proof that wooden fortifications were still

used in the reign of Edward III.

Though the base court of the Old Baile is now built over, its area and

ditches were visible in Leland's time,[821] and can still be guessed

at by the indications Mr Cooper has noted. The area of the bailey must

have been nearly 3 acres, and its shape nearly square. This measurement

includes the motte, which was placed in the south-west corner on

the line of the banks; it thus overlooked the river as well as the

city.[822]